Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39963536›Full record

ArticlePlastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open2025

Readability of Patient Education Materials in Plastic Surgery: Assessing 14 Years of Progress.

Peter J Wirth, Aleah M Warden, Steven P Moura, Pradeep K Attaluri, Jeffrey D Larson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Peter J WirthFrom the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI.
Aleah M WardenDepartment of Plastic Surgery, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL.
Steven P MouraFrom the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI.
Pradeep K AttaluriFrom the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI.
Jeffrey D LarsonFrom the Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, WI.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Current recommendations suggest that patient education materials (PEMs) be written at or below the sixth-grade reading level. In a 2010 study, the average readability of PEMs on the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) and The Aesthetic Society (AS) websites was found to be at the 11th-grade level or higher. We sought to assess progress made toward providing accessible PEMs. Methods: PEMs were obtained from the ASPS and AS websites. The PEMs were entered into an online scoring tool. PEMs were scored on 3 common readability indices: Flesch-Kincaid, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, and Flesch Reading Ease (FRE). Results: The average grade level of ASPS PEMs calculated using the Flesch-Kincaid, Simple Measure of Gobbledygook, and FRE readability models were 9.7 ± 1.1, 12.6 ± 0.7, and 47.6 ± 6.2, respectively. This FRE score corresponds to approximately grade 13-16 reading levels. The average of AS PEMs were 9.3 ± 0.5, 12.3 ± 0.3, and 51.3 ± 3.9, respectively; this FRE corresponds to grade 10-12 reading levels. There were no PEMs written at or below the recommended sixth-grade reading level found on ASPS and AS websites. Conclusions: Despite increasing awareness of the need for equitable access to healthcare, PEMs continue to be written at a reading level well above the recommendation. Over the past 14 years, we have seen only modest improvement in readability indices. In addition to advocating for more accessible PEMs, we must gather a deeper understanding of how patients seek information about plastic surgery.

Identifiers

PMID39963536
PMCPMC11832205

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.